Political Litmus Test in University of California Hiring

Yesterday, a friend of mine went for a job interview at one of the University of California campuses and was asked the following question:

"What is your definition of diversity and social justice? How would you incorporate those into your job?"

Yesterday, coincidentally, I was also talking to a friend about the disappearance of ethical behavior and integrity in American society.

This was quite obviously some sort of political litmus test. Employment at the taxpayer funded University of California is now contingent upon agreement with ill-defined, radical leftist concepts such as these. Support for anti-Caucasian bigotry and discriminatory socialist policies like affirmative action is now a requirement for holding a position in a state-funded university. To screen for individuals that support reverse discrimination and racist ethnic quotas shows an utter lack of fairness, and to use a state university position to further an extremist political agenda shows complete corruptness and a total lack of ethical behavior. Which, as a Californian, I have sadly come to expect from the administration and faculty at the University of California. As fair-minded freedom-lovers devoted to equal treatment and liberty, we must stop this sort of idealogical discrimination by governmental institutions and remind university officials that they serve the State and its people, and are employed to teach and support students, not to indoctrinate nor to exploit tax funds and student fees for their own political goals.

Shoving "Pride" Down Your Throat

In the increasingly influential realm of politically correct fascism, it is no longer enough to "tolerate" those with different views or personal practices - it is no longer enough to treat everyone equally or fairly as individuals. In the intolerant madness disguised under the euphemism "promote diversity," one must "celebrate" the culture or sub-culture of supposedly underrepresented or underprivileged groups. One must place all focus not on individual achievement or merit, but on superficial elements like group affiliation or ethnic background.

In a huge disappointment, in order to be perceived as gay-friendly and tolerant, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders appointed openly lesbian Tracy Jarman as San Diego Fire Chief in June 2006. The disappointment was not that Jarman is a lesbian and honest about that fact, but that a huge issue was made of her personal sexual practices in the first place in relation to her hiring. Rather than focus on any experience she may or may not have, or her qualifications to be chief or run an incredibly large fire department effectively and efficiently, the focus was instead on whether she preferred box lunches to sausage. When Sanders was elected mayor, I don't recall anyone bringing up the fact that he likes the tang, not the shaft. But somehow Jarman's sexual orientation was paramount to the city's assessment of her appointment. And of course, being a politically correct figurehead, her concern was not about the individual rights or qualifications of fire-fighters, or about fighting fires or anything that concerns the average citizen who pays his or her taxes for such a department in the first place. Instead, this corrupt, non-neutral activist began harping about making the department "more diverse," rather than more accountable to the taxpayer or more able to protect and service the community. According to Jarman:

It’s not just the Gay community. I think we need to do a better job of recruiting across the board so that we reflect the community.”

It is completely impossible to "reflect" the community through affirmative action and/or outreach. What a narrow-minded promoter of diversity is actually trying to reflect is an arbitrary, limited view of selective groupings based on their own stereotypes and biases. And somehow, in the view of the irrational diversity police, a quota system is going to put out forest fires a lot quicker. Oh, no wait, that's not a concern at all.

But Jarman's corruption ends not with her failure to denounce special privilege based on race and sexual preference and such, but recently her department went so far as to force straight fire fighters to ride in the Gay Pride Parade in San Diego.

These fire fighters were threatened with "disciplinary action" if they did not participate, and suffered through taunts and comments that any reasonable person would refer to as "sexual harassment" as a result of their forced participation in this event as city employees.

While on parade, the firefighters “were subjected to vile sexual taunts from homosexuals lining the parade route,” said the press release. “Show me your hose,” “you can put out my fire,” “you’re making me hot,” “give me mouth-to-mouth,”“blow my hose,” were some of the comments those along the parade route hurled at the firefighters. When the firefighters did not respond, “some in the crowd turned hostile and started shouting, ‘F—k you firemen’ and others began ‘flipping them off,’” said the press release.

Some bystanders committed lewd acts, directed at the firefighters, such as exposing their genitals, grabbing the crotch, and blowing kisses. The firefighters, however, were not physically assaulted.

Somehow, in Jarman's department, preventing discrimination against gays has transformed into special privileges for homosexuals and a clear violation of the rights of non-gay employees. In other words, reverse discrimination rather than neutrality. Under no circumstance should the taxpayers be forced to send representatives to what is essentially a large, somewhat risque gay-themed street party. Nor should individuals have their jobs threatened and thus be forced into a situation where they are subjected to unwelcome sexual advances.

I am in no way suggesting that events like gay pride parades be banned. They may well be important to the homosexual community, and as free individuals in a land of liberty, they have every right to assemble and associate as they see fit. Of course, the double-standard that a Straight Parade would be labeled "bigoted" does trouble me to no end. In any case, such events should not be sponsored with tax funds, and the event organizers should reimburse any costs to the city government. Gay fire fighters should not be punished for attending such an event, on their own time. But the city should not pay individuals to attend during work hours (except of course to handle emergencies) as representatives, and cannot expect employees to attend or worse award their attendance. This would be equivalent to forcing gay atheist fire fighters to attend a large religious rally as representatives, exposing them to taunts like "sinner" and "repent." Would THAT be acceptable? Would paying a Christian fire-fighter to go to church be acceptable?

Unfortunately, the politically correct would never apply such logic to their own actions and policies. What is important to them is only that their personal beliefs and practices get shoved down your throat, at your expense, and that you accept them or face the iron fist of punishment.

Jarman should be sacked, or should resign.

UPDATE: The firefighters' complaint can be viewed here.

UPDATE: There's a story on this at signonsandiego. Don't forget to check out some of the crazy comments at the bottom from idiots that equate the concept of fair treatment for straight fire fighters and their discomfort with being verbally molested by homosexuals with homophobia and bigotry. Nice. There are also a few "well, two wrongs make a right" moronic attempts at arguments as well.

Different standards, of course, apply to gays and straights. And this is called 'equity' amongst the left.

Proper Bathroom Etiquette, OR Don't Flush the Koran

As you know, flushing the Koran in free-speech America will get you charged with a hate crime. Here's some simple rules to follow while using the restroom:



On a side note, when I first put in the title, I accidentally typed "Don't Flush the Korean."

The Scumbags That Run CalTrans, OR How Your State Government Works For Tribalism and Against Equal Protection

Once upon a time, someone somewhere had the bright idea that people and their government institutions should treat people fairly, equally, without bias. Then some twisted fuckers came along and distorted this admirable ideal into the concept that the only way to fight discrimination and to stimulate and promote equality and fairness is with inequality and unfairness. This disgustingly warped practice of reverse discrimination became known as "affirmative action." "Action" because they were doing something. "Affirmative" because the alliteration sounded good - and because they wanted people to think that since their ends could be seen as positive to some, it justified their evil means. To assess this bluntly, they saw affirmative action not just as two wrongs making a right - but they saw it as an increasing of the same wrong eventually making everything right. But, two wrongs in this case just make more wrong. They advocated, many still advocate, fighting fire with fire until the whole motherfucking house burns down into a pile of useless ash.

It is utterly impossible to morally or logically defend the practice of affirmative action, for to do so undermines all justification for affirmative action in the first place. By saying some forms of discrimination are acceptable in some cases, even for supposedly beneficial goals, one also allows for those practicing other forms of discrimination to justify their own biased practices. In other words, if you apply the fuzzy reasoning that purple people can discriminate against all blue people because of the past discriminatory practices of some blue people, then the ethical loophole has been opened for blues, for example, to turn around and justify their own discrimination of all purples based on the negative, harmful behaviors of some purples (say high crime rates, or annoying musical trends, long finger nails, whatever). There is no way around this. Bigotry is bad cannot be used as an argument for bigotry is good.

In that vein, the California Department of Transportation continues to ignore common sense and honor, and continues to flip their collective middle finger at the California voters who were brave, sane, and well-meaning enough to pass proposition 209, by attempting to reward individuals contracts simply on the basis of their skin-color.

Caltrans on Wednesday petitioned the federal government to begin using race as a consideration in awarding transportation contracts.

When will this unprincipled desire to tribalize our nation end? Rewarding contracts based on race, besides being insanely unfair, simply costs the tax-payers more money, time and resources, and endangers the well-being of the state and its population. Rationality is tossed out the window, and businesses are judged on secondary, unimportant elements like the pigmentation of their owners (not even the racial make-up of their employees!) rather than on logical factors like cost and quality of service and product. Intelligent thought takes a back-seat to ethnic quotas.

One need look no further than deathtrap Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital in the Los Angeles area to see how poor services can be when they stem from empty-headed decision making based on racial preference. I heard a commercial the other day stating that the state of California needs more nurses, especially those equipped to deal with the diversity of the state population. What the FUCK DOES THAT MEAN? No, the state and its hospitals do NOT fucking need to be using "racial sensitivity" as the criteria for nursing qualification. For fuck's sake, we're talking about peoples' health and lives here. We need people actually capable of doing the job. The racially sensitive, diverse state at King-Harbor, chosen for non-medical, non-job performance reasons, are completely inept, leaving people to die, mistreating them. That racial sensitivity was the ONLY qualification even mentioned in the goddamn commercial shows just how fucked up the priorities of this state have become. You'll be misdiagnosed and murdered by medical incompetence, but at least the racial makeup of the hospital staff is equivalent to the ethnic proportions of the state population. FUCK YEAH! That's worth dying over.

Along the lines of that point,

Civil rights groups have blamed Proposition 209, which voters passed in 1996 to outlaw affirmative action, and a 2005 federal court decision for a long decline in transportation contracts to minority and woman-owned businesses.

One cannot with any moral authority blame Proposition 209 for this decline, one can only blame the minority and woman-owned businesses themselves for failing when forced to compete on a level playing field.

Here's the supposedly awful change that Proposition 209 made:

The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

Oh my god! Treating people FAIRLY is being blamed for a decline? That's simply inane.

According to some stupid, downright evil, twat named Monique Morris:

"This is significant, because it demonstrates that in this diverse state, there is not equal opportunity" that was promised by the promoters of Prop. 209. "There is a need to address whether Prop. 209 was a mistake or a failure in providing equal opportunity."

No, you vile scumfuck, it's complete bullshit to claim there is not equal opportunity. The opportunity is there, and finally equal. It's time for minority and women-owned businesses to step up to the plate. Don't blame the state, or that white dude over there surfing. In no way should "equal opportunity" mean "proportionately awarded based on skin-color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or how many eyeballs you have." It means there should be no bias in the process of awarding contracts based on these factors. There is absolutely no way in hell "Prop. 209 was a mistake or a failure in providing equal opportunity," because by its very wording and application, except where it is superseded by other racially biased laws that take precedent, it ends the legalization of unequal opportunity.

What people seem to mean when they say "equal opportunity," is not "opportunity" at all, but equal or proportionate RESULTS. And in no way should the state, or anyone else, be held accountable if people fail to take advantage of opportunity. And that's not the same thing at all.

The Malicious Morons at MoveOn.Org, OR Boycotting What You Don't Like, OR Feigning Outrage for Political Gain, OR The War Against Fox News

Perhaps you've heard of MoveOn.Org. Perhaps you've wondered from what the organization advocates that we, the United States of America, should "move on." Originally, it was formed to petition Congress to censure Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinksy lie and "move on" to other, bigger issues and the business of governing the country. Of course, the country has, for the most part, moved on from the perjury and impeachment of Bill Clinton, at least as an issue facing Congress. And MoveOn has moved on to more sinister, more totalitarian goals. Today, it seems, the organization is promoting that we Americans move on from common sense, from fairness, from personal liberty, from honor and respectability, from free expression, from open-mindedness, from the unhindered marketplace of ideas, from democracy.

Now MoveOn.Org wants to limit the free exchange of ideas. Now MoveOn.Org wants to silence any non-conformists to its irrational, unsubstantiated leftist agenda. Now MoveOn.Org wants to ensure a complete liberal bias and leftist monopoly of all media outlets. Now MoveOn.Org wants to start a boycott of any company that advertises on FoxNews.

For the most part, I have absolutely no problem with people voting with their dollars. I myself have ended relationships with companies whose actions I find morally reprehensible, most recently Bank of America for their decision to encourage a disregard for the laws of this country by providing illegal aliens with banking services. And I had zero problem telling Bank of America that I was outraged and I no longer wanted to do business with them.

But how effective are organized boycotts, really? Has this nation reached a critical mass when it comes to boycotts and "public outrage"? Every day there is another news story of some group expressing their blown-out-of-proportion "outrage" over minor issues, tiny jokes, slips of the tongue, or the free expression of ideas not completely in sync with their own. Outrage is a constant, perpetual. Everyone's pissed about something, and anything you do is going to piss somebody off.

Part of the growing problem of this unending blame assignment stems from a deeper logical fallacy that has infected the minds of not only of Americans, but of people across the world - it is an irrational belief that groups of people, organizations, are indirectly or directly liable or responsible for the actions and deeds of individuals. Secondly, there is a growing intolerance toward differences of opinion. Thirdly, there is an increasing disregard for logic and rationality, and a shrinking willingness to look at issues and facts with any sort of discerning, unbiased eye - which in turns translates to people opining solely emotionally, with no real concrete thought behind it. This of course leads to gross misrepresentations of opposing hypotheses and conclusions. For examples, the promoters of the theory that global warming is caused primarily by the activities of mankind have fallen into a blind, religious fervor - accepting no discussion or debate, and seeing anything less than a full "commitment," as that insane fascist RFK Jr worded it in a discussion with Glenn Beck, to their hypothesis as blasphemy. The first rule of blind faith - eliminate the doubt in others, or at least the ability of others to express doubt, for fear that their skepticism will awaken hesitancy in oneself.

When it comes to large companies, or large media outlets, some confuse individual trees with the forest. The opinions of one may not reflect the views of the whole. In fact, the whole may even just have some "free expression" policy within itself, allowing for internal inconsistency and freedom. A media outlet may only being interested in providing forums for a variety of ideas and opinions, to appeal to a variety of consumers at different points. Also, news providers often segment out, or compartmentalize, information based on interest, topic, or execution. For example, newspapers have local sections, national sections, sports sections, lifestyle sections, arts sections, and so on. And straightforward news reporting is most often splintered off from editorializing. The scumbags at the LA Times editorialize about freeing the traitor John Walker Lindh. Cable news networks, like Fox News, can in turn provide "opinion sections" in the form of pundit programs, like those of Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. A perfectly acceptable and long-standing tradition. But because these editorialists express opinions during their editorial segments, or guests or anchors even QUESTION the opinions held by MoveOn, the morons at MoveOn.Org irrationally conclude that the Fox News Network completely fails to provide "fair and balanced" news programming.

What bothers me is not the right of MoveOn.Org and like-minded individuals to organize a boycott and participate in one, it is the twisted reasoning for their proposed boycott. The great offense Fox News committed? They fail to completely agree with MoveOn. They provide forums for dissenting or alternate opinions. I don't expect the members of MoveOn to want to watch O'Reilly any more than I should be expected to subscribe to that shit-rag the LA Times. I have no problem with MoveOn expressing disagreement with any of O'Reilly's opinions. What I find disturbing in the idea that, in the eyes of MoveOn, Fox News is committing a sort of mindcrime by even freely existing or exploring an issue or allowing free speech on their programs. To make the distinction clear, imagine a group of Christians boycotting a television show because they find a character to be an offensive representation of a Christian. Now imagine a group of Christians boycotting every advertiser to an entire network because that network is not completely devoted to Christianity and is not evangelically promoting the Christian faith every second of the day.

Now imagine what leftist groups like MoveOn would say about that Christian group if the latter were true. Or even the former.

MoveOn has even convinced Democratic Presidential candidates not to appear during Fox News sponsored debates. Which of course just makes these Democrats look petty and cowardly.

Some boycotts are effective because many businesses cowardly cave to the demands of extremists, for fear of losing customers and thus profits. But any intelligent business owner will tell you that you cannot appeal to everyone. The trouble is, businesses can make rash decisions, especially when not hearing the other side of an argument - they only listener to the boycotters, mistakenly thinking they're the only ones concerned about an issue. It becomes a win-lose situation in their minds - we can lose some customers by continuing to do what we are doing, or we can keep them all by not offending these few.

So how best to counter the waves of perpetual outrage? How best to make businesses realize they should not, or at least need not, kowtow to radicals? With a counter-boycott - either by supporting businesses that are being boycotted (and letting them know you are), or by in turn boycotting businesses that succumb to the extortion of extremists. When businesses are put in a lose-lose situation, they'll take the losing route they think will make them the most money. If put in a situation of losing customers either way, they will make choices based on their own agendas, or their own best interests. The trouble now is that businesses often fail to realize the amount of ill-will that can be generated by succumbing to boycotts. If the effects are equalized, then organized boycotting will eventually fall to the wayside. Businesses will then continue to advertise in places where they will reach more customers without having to worry about whether or not their advertising dollars will indirectly connected to some great offense in some radical's mind.